Submit your Article

It is no news that the prime min­ister’s position is the most cov­eted political position in Nepal since the 1990s. This is true for any parliamentary democracy for that matter. Yet, ironically, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the execu­tive nerve center, has been the least desired posting for civil servants. Some former bureaucrats even describe it as a ‘dumping ground’ for the undesirables. “In our system of governance, the prime minister is the most powerful person, ultimately accountable for all the successes and failures of the government,” says Bhoj Raj Pokhrel, former Chief Election Commissioner who has also served in the capacity of Chief Secretary. “But since the 1990s, successive prime ministers have been unable to exercise their authority and were often held hos­tage by influential ministers.”

This seems to be changing with the cabinet’s endorsement of new Business Rules for the executive last month. Close on the heels of federal restructuring, the PMO is undergo­ing a major overhaul—the first of its kind in its modern history—giving it broad powers designed to place it at the center of a “command and control” structure. While the details of the restructuring are still patchy, a broad outline being discussed sug­gests an expansive list of authority vested in the PMO.

The key principles guiding these reforms revolve around the idea of giving the PMO the ability to mon­itor and supervise the governance processes, and to set up a system of rewards and punishments as and when necessary, says Bishnu Rimal, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s Chief Political Adviser. “It is designed to make the PMO a center of excellence.”

These plans for reform didn’t come about overnight though. They had been discussed during Oli’s first stint as prime minister in 2015-16. “Back then time was so short that we weren’t able to work on it,” says Rimal. “But this time we had couple of months between the elections and the formation of the new government.”

Prime Minister Oli’s previous experience in government appears to have convinced him of the need to revamp the system to clear the many governance bottlenecks. “PM Oli and the left alliance ran on the platform of political stability, pros­perity and good governance. Now that their agenda has been endorsed by the voters, they clearly under­stand that the road to prosperity passes through good governance,” says Pokhrel.

National security

There are several broad strands of reform under discussion. First among them is revamping the large­ly symbolic National Security Coun­cil (NSC) and empowering it as some other countries. The position of a National Security Adviser (NSA) is to be created—combining both security and foreign affairs roles, according to officials. To support the NSC and the NSA, the National Investigation Department (NID), which was under the Ministry of Home Affairs, has now been brought under the PMO to augment intelligence gathering on internal and external security threat, economic crimes and cor­ruption under the federal structure. Similar reform had been recom­mended by a recent study of the Nepal Institute for Policy Studies, a think-tank.

“The NSC is necessary in a federal setup and should be headed by a competent authority,” says Geja Sharma Wagle, a secu­rity expert, who was involved in the study. “Under past govern­ments, the NID had become a politi­cal recruitment center.”

Attempts to cre­ate a counter-intel­ligence unit under the PMO have been under discussion for several years but given the short stints of succes­sive governments, there has been no tangible action until now.

Governance

The second aspect of the restruc­turing is motived by the desire to maintain strict vigilance over gov­ernance processes, including cor­ruption and financial crime, while checking instances of constitutional bodies overstepping their mandates: Lok Man Singh Karki’s unruly tenure as the head of the CIAA, the consti­tutional anti-graft body, being the quintessential case in point, as UML leaders point out. The CIAA under Karki had become highly intrusive and had created a fear psychology among civil servants and politicians alike that in turn contributed to gov­ernance paralysis. This, UML lead­ers say, is the rationale for bringing the Department of Revenue Inves­tigation (DRI), the Department of Money Laundering Investigation (DMLRI) and the Social Welfare Council within the PMO’s purview.

“Controlling corruption is not the CIAA’s job, it is rather the prime minister’s job,” tweets Rabindra Adhikari, CPN-UML lawmaker and former chair of the parliament’s Development Committee. “The CIAA steps in only when the PM is unable [to control corruption].” UML leaders argue that the prime minister has to have the right infor­mation to check corruption, which is what the remodeled PMO enables. Moreover, say UML leaders, these institutions will have a lot of autono­my and power under the PMO.

While bringing these bodies under the PMO is a good step, that alone is inadequate, says former adminis­trator Pokhrel. “Effective and inde­pendent functioning of these institu­tions calls for an enabling environ­ment and strong leadership.”

Federalism concerns

Some worry that a strong PMO may also go against the idea of fed­eralism where power is shared and not concentrated. As Nepal is in its formative years of implementing a federal system, there are inherent risks of setting precedents where provinces do not assert their author­ity, partly because there is weak leadership in the provinces and a strong one at the center, and partly because six out of the seven provinc­es have government led by the ruling left alliance (all seven if Samajwadi Forum and RJPN join the govern­ment). In the case of the six chief ministers, they may be reluctant to challenge their own party’s prime minister if he seeks to weaken the provinces, the argument goes.

But others say that a strong prime minister is essential to honor the constitutional spirit of federalism. Given the clear devolution of power in the constitution where provincial and local governments are in charge of sub-national bodies, empowering provincial governments should be in line with the center’s agenda of shared prosperity, they argue.

“In principle, strengthening the PMO is a good thing. The only ques­tion is of intent,” says Wagle, the security expert. There are some who already question the government’s intent—pointing at the move to bring the Social Welfare Council under the PMO. They fear that the council could be used to deny donor fund­ing to civil society groups that are critical of the government.

The prime minister’s top polit­ical adviser argues that the Oli government is doing what all oth­er governments wanted to do but could not—and that there is no rea­son to fear a power grab. These reforms will be underpinned by recommendations of experts in the think-tank wing of the PMO, according to Rimal. “There will not only be party affiliated intel­lectuals, but also experts who offer critical viewpoints.”

General Secretary of the CPN (Revolutionary Maoist) Mohan Baidya ‘Kiran’ has announced a ‘new revolution’ in the country following his party’s merg­er with the Netra Bikram Chand ‘Biplab’-led Communist Party of Nepal. Baidya made the announce­ment at a joint program organized in Bharatpur, Chitwan. “The two parties will work togeth­er to start a new revolution,” said Baidya. “But unlike the previous revolution, it won’t be violent.”

Baidya argued that another rev­olution is necessary because the Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachan­da’-led Maoist Center—which has now merged with KP Sharma Oli-led CPN-UML—has ignored those who were killed, disappeared or injured in the ‘People’s War’. Therefore, the responsibility of fulfilling their demands has fallen on the shoulders of his and Biplab’s parties.

Taking a jab at Dahal, Baidya said the country’s hero has turned into a villain. “How can we trust some­one who, when he lost the ability to go at it alone, has tagged along sometimes with the Congress and at other times with the UML? At a time when those who contributed to the ‘People’s War’ are behind bars, Dahal is indulging in power politics. This has compelled us to choose a revolutionary path,” said Baidya.

Baidya accused Dahal of working to protect the same system that he once waged war against. He claimed that the much-touted left unity between the UML and the MC won’t last, notwithstanding the country’s need for a stable government.

Baidya also challenged the govern­ment to arrest Chand, after it issued an arrest warrant against him.

Ranbir Bam, politburo member of the Chand-led CPN, said it had now become glaringly obvious that Dahal was working against Maoist princi­ples. “In the past, many asked us why we splintered from the mother party. Time has provided the answer to that question,” said Bam.

“It was the ‘People’s War’ that gave birth to Dahal. But he ended the war only to be part of the old establishment. How can someone who couldn’t manage the needs of the families of those who fought for the revolution manage the needs of the entire citizenry?” asked Bam. “That’s why Nepal’s revolution remains incomplete. So we’re wag­ing another revolution.”

President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s bid for a second term is all but certain to be successful after CPN-UML central committee meet­ing decided this week to nominate her for the position. Two factors seemed to have worked in Bhandari’s favor—that she is close to Prime Minister KP Oli and that she has only served two years in office (the constitution stipulates the President’s tenure to be five years long). Former prime minister and senior UML leader Jhala Nath Khanal was also an aspirant to the post.

Following the UML central com­mittee decision, Bhandari filed her candidacy for presidency with the election officer at the federal par­liament. Her candidacy was pro­posed by senior UML leaders Mad­hav Kumar Nepal, Subas Nembang, Iswor Pokhrel and Maoist leader Onsari Gharti.

The presidential election is slated for March 13. Bhandari’s victory is almost certain as the ruling coalition led by the UML holds a majority in the federal as well as the provincial assemblies whose members will vote in the election.

It was the first democratic prime minister of Nepal, BP Koirala, who took the initiative to establish diplomatic relations with Pakistan. Nepal’s outreach to Pakistan was in line with Koirala’s stated policy of strict neutrality in foreign policy conduct, or ‘non-alignment’. Some even speculate that Koirala’s decision to establish diplomatic ties with China and Pakistan, both in 1960, led to his ouster in a royal coup later in that year. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in this reading, lent his full support to the dictatorial ambitions of King Mahendra, the coup plotter, to make Koirala pay for the ultimate crime of cozying up to India’s ‘enemies’. It is a dif­ferent story that King Mahendra would himself later cultivate Pakistan (and China) in order to balance Indian influence in Nepal. This is why, soon after usurping all executive powers, King Mahendra made an official visit in 1961 to Pakistan, where he was widely hailed as a “sagacious statesman”.

Such is the brief history of Nepal-Pakistan relations. With the SAARC in a coma and bilateral trade minimal, Nepal and Pakistan have not had much to discuss in recent times. “This is why the [recent Nepal] visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi so troubles me,” says Keshab Bhatta­rai, a geopolitical analyst. “What other purpose will it serve save for antagonizing India?”

Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli may have his own calcula­tions in playing host to Abbasi, says Bhattarai, but it is a “risky strategy that could easily backfire”.

But in the view of CPN-UML’s Rajan Bhattarai, who is also the proposed foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Oli, Abbasi’s trip was a simple case of a friend of Nepal wanting to visit and the host government obliging him. In the high-level talks between the two governments during the visit, “we discussed ways to revive SAARC,” he says.

India has not taken kindly to past suggestion of both Nepal and Pakistan that China be inducted as a full SAARC member. Abbasi’s visit, supposedly centered on SAARC, could thus make India suspect Oli’s intent.

There is no reason for such suspicions, argues Bhattarai, the UML leader. “Yes, regional issues were discussed, but we also discussed bilateral matters like boosting trade and exchange of students.” Abbasi invited Oli to visit Pakistan and the Nepali prime minister promised to visit “at a mutually con­venient time”, according to Bhattarai. That, in his view, is the long and short of it.

That however won’t stop tongues from wagging long after Abbasi has left Nepal.